Connect with us

General

Did You Notice The Blue Ribbons & Other Political Stunts At The Oscars?

Michelle Blair

Published

on

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

I love watching movies and, although I’m not really into award shows or the whole “Hollywood scene,” I decided to watch the Oscars last night. To my dismay, I found that it was less about the movies and more about American politics.

advertisement - learn more

Everyone seems to love bashing Trump, so much so that you cannot turn on your television or listen to your radio anymore without being bombarded by propaganda. Don’t get me wrong — I do not support Trump. In fact, I don’t support either side, since both the right wing and the left wing are ultimately a part of the same bird, as the saying goes. I’ve simply noticed a trend lately amongst mainstream media and the public in general, which is that there’s no escape from U.S. politics, and to me this was evident at the Oscars.

--> Our Journalism Is Moving - Our investigative journalism and reporting is moving to our new brand called The Pulse. Click here to stay informed.

Oscars Acceptance Speeches That Turned Political

If you watched the Oscars this year, you can probably think of numerous examples of propaganda during the show. Let’s start with some of the quotes from the infamous host, Jimmy Kimmel. One of the first things he said was that CNN, the BBC, the New York Times, the L.A. Times, “and any other ‘Times,’ for that matter” weren’t invited to the Oscars; a clear dig at Trump’s decision to block several mainstream media outlets from attending the White House briefing.

“This broadcast is being watched live by millions of Americans and around the world in more than 225 countries that now hate us,” he said.

“If every one of you took a minute to reach out to one person you disagree with and have a positive, considerate conversation — not as liberals or conservatives but as Americans — if we all did that it would make America great again. It starts with us,” said Kimmel.

Kimmel makes a great point: We shouldn’t be arguing over which side is correct, but rather coming together as equals. And this doesn’t just apply to Americans; we are all a part of a global community and we all feed the collective quantum field.

advertisement - learn more

“I mean, remember last year,” continued Kimmel, “when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?” Kimmel was referring to the controversial Oscars award show last year, as the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite went viral after absolutely no actors of colour were nominated, and for the second year in a row. The blame was probably in part due to prejudices, but the Academy isn’t entirely to blame. During this century, minority actors have only secured 15% of the top roles, so there really isn’t a wide variety of leading actors of colour to nominate.

Let’s not forget how the Oscars work. We don’t vote for our favourite films and actors — the 6,028 Academy Award members do. At the time, 94% of the voters were white, predominantly men, and were an average of 63 years old. It’s not hard to imagine how prejudices could manipulate the votes.

It wasn’t just Jimmy Kimmel who used his position as an opportunity to discuss politics. An overwhelming amount of people used their speeches to share their opinions, too. Although I questioned some of their motives, I do think it’s incredible that people are using their star power to try to create change and voice their opinions! However, whether that’s positive change or what their motives were, who knows.

The Best Documentary was awarded to Ezra Edelman for O. J. Simpson: Made in America, which to me was fairly shocking because it was up against some incredible documentaries, including 13th, which I wrote a CE article about last year. Edelman dedicated his award to victims of police brutality and racially motivated violence, which was a beautiful tribute, as this is a severely overlooked issue.

The presenter for Best Animated Feature Film, Gael García Bernal, voiced that he was “against any form of wall that wants to separate us.” Again, this is another beautiful declaration of equality, but a clear reference to Trump.

The winner of The White Helmets, a documentary about the Syrian conflict, even read a quote from the Koran. This award was extremely questionable, as the White Helmets have a fairly controversial reputation. The organization has received $100 million worth of funding by the U.S., the U.K., Europe, and other states.

They claim to be saving civilians in Eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one over there has heard of them. They also claim to be neutral, yet they’ve been photographed carrying guns and standing around the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers. You can watch Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett further discuss the White Helmets at a United Nations talk here (starting around 15 minutes into the video).

“Through the White Helmets we are seeing the eradication of Syrian state institutions and the implanting of a Syrian shadow state by predominantly the UK, the US and supported by EU governments,” explains Vanessa Beeley, independent researcher and journalist. Yet, for some reason, the Academy deemed this organization worthy of receiving an award for their documentary.

Italian-born Alessandro Bertolazzi dedicated his makeup award for Suicide Squad to “all the immigrants.” And in what she referred to as “a small sign of solidarity,” director Ava DuVernay declared that she was wearing a gown by a designer from a majority Muslim country.

This year marked the first year in Oscar history where six black actors were nominated for awards, a record for the Academy. Viola Davis won Best Supporting Actress for her role in Fences and a Muslim man won Best Supporting Actor (Mahershala Ali, for Moonlight). Perhaps the most shocking move was when the Iranian director Asghar Farhadi, whose The Salesman was awarded Best Foreign-Language Film, boycotted the entire ceremony, refusing to attend in protest of Trump’s ban on Muslim travellers.

Someone read his acceptance speech, however, which was essentially a long-winded political statement: “Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fears. A deceitful justification for aggression and war. These wars prevent democracy and human rights in countries which have themselves been victims of aggression.”

These wars are largely the result of previous presidents funding them, yet no one spoke out about them in past award ceremonies. And no one mentioned the role the Obama administration played in funding ISIS and the Syrian war; it was just people addressing racist quotes and proposed policies from Trump. While I am thrilled that celebrities are using their fame to make a difference, at this point in the show, I started questioning whether or not the Academy was choosing the best films or the best opportunities to deliver political speeches.

Even the conclusion of the Oscars reminded me of the U.S. election. If you didn’t watch the awards show, it ended with La La Land being accidentally presented with the most significant award of the night for Best Picture. As it turned out, Moonlight had actually won, so during their acceptance speeches, the producer grabbed the microphone and explained the mix-up.

This strangely reminded me of the U.S. election. Everyone was so confident that Hillary Clinton would win, given her strong ties to the elite and the White House; however, Trump surprised all of us and is now the President of the United States. La La Land was presumed to win this award, actually accepted it, and then it was taken away from them. Could this have been pre-planned by the Academy as a symbol of the recent U.S. election results? It might be a stretch, but at this point, who knows?

So, What About Those Blue Ribbons? 

You may have noticed numerous celebrities sporting blue ribbons on their dresses and suits. The blue ribbons represent the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), a non-profit organization whose chief aim is “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

Nominees, presenters, musicians, and guests at the Oscars were allegedly encouraged to wear the ribbon to stand in solidarity for equal rights and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Although this is an incredible statement, I question whether this was simply another political stunt encouraged by the elite.

Although ACLU seems like a well-intended non-profit, I can’t help but question their motives, especially given their ties to elitist George Soros, a key member of the shadow government disguised as a philanthropic billionaire.

Ever since ACLU started filing lawsuits against Trump’s executive orders, the non-profit has received a massive tidal wave in contributions. According to the Washington Post, the lawsuits filed by the ACLU caused their amount of donations to skyrocket, totalling over $24 million in one weekend, which is approximately six times the organization’s average annual donations. This is not to say that I support Trump’s drastic decisions, since I am a staunch advocate for equality and democracy. However, the U.S. has not been living democratically for quite some time, and this is starting to raise some real red flags.

Many of the ACLU’s lawsuits were directly funded by George Soros and Democratic state attorneys general. Soros’s Open Society Institute has donated over $35 million to the ACLU alone and millions more to other liberal organizations willing to file lawsuits against the Trump administration’s policies. This seems like a well-intended philanthropic move, but if you know anything about George Soros, it’s safe to assume that his donations are strategic political moves to inspire chaos so he can profit from the wreckage.

Soros is well-known for his ties to the Ukrainian conflict and for creating and funding the Black Lives Matter and Women’s March movements. These movements appear to be rooted in equality but then they instil fear and manipulate us into fighting against each other, creating even more separation and division. In my opinion, this same trend was starting to play out at the Oscars.

People are so obsessed with taking a side: left or right, conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican, and then we allow this to divide us even further. We forget that, regardless of our opinions, we are still all fundamentally connected to one another. All of this separatism is an illusion, and the more we play into that, even if you think you’re fighting for “the right side,” the more divided we become.

What Can We Learn From This Year’s Oscars? 

Although the Oscars were probably once about the films, I think that it’s transitioned into something much bigger and broader. Now, it’s more so about the fashion, symbolism, pop culture, celebrities, speeches, and, apparently, politics.

I think that these awards shows in general should be more about art than anything else. The beauty in art is that it connects us all, regardless of our political opinions, race, etc. These events could serve as a platform for us to all come together and celebrate the beauty in expression and human creativity. I believe art should be shared and celebrated, not manipulated and used for a political agenda.

I do believe that there was still a lot of light that shined through the award show. Clearly many individuals are passionate about equality and creating positive change and felt the need to speak out about it, which is beautiful! In a way, this was a testament to how much people want equality. Let’s just hope that society’s newfound passion for equality doesn’t turn into another form of division by creating another radical, one-sided party.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Advertisement
advertisement - learn more

General

Abductions & Car Vandalism – Startling Australian UFO Report Unclassified

Gautam Peddada

Published

on

By

2 minute read

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

An uncovered Australian report performed by their Department of Defence. “Scientific Intelligence — General — Unidentified Flying Objects” is trending again. Those who have done extensive research on UFOs will find the Australian version of disclosure to be far more intellectually honest than the American version. Albeit it was conducted decades ago.

According to ex-US intelligence official Luis Elizondo, the Defense Department’s Inspector General is presently conducting three reviews. The inquiries vary from the Department of Defense’s handling of UFO claims to Elizondo’s alleged whistleblower retribution. The open IG cases are crucial to Australia’s report because they establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the US Department of Defense is being dishonest and shady when it comes to the UFO subject. For decades, Australia has been a loyal friend of the United States. Within Australia’s boundaries, they share a military installation (Pine Gap). When a close defense ally’s intelligence agencies determined that the US was not being intellectually honest in its approach, perhaps it is reasonable to conclude that there is more to the tale than the 144 incidents studied since 2004 by the UAPTF.

The CIA became alarmed at the overloading of military communications during the mass sightings of 1952 and considered the possibility that the USSR may take advantage of such a situation.

Australian UFO study.

According to the summary, OSI, acting through the Robertson-Panel, encouraged the USAF to use Project Blue Book to publicly “debunk” UFOs. In a tragic twist of fate, when Australian authorities sought explanations from the US Air Force, the allegation was debunked. The authors of the study were depicted as conspiratorial and even crazy by the US Air Force. Ross Coulthart reported this, and it may be heard in a recent Project Unity interview. Courthart is an award-winning investigative journalist who is drawn to forbidden subjects. He also stated on the same podcast that a senior US Navy official identified as Nat Kobitz told him that the US had been in the midst of reverse-engineering numerous non-human craft. According to his obituary, Mr. Kobitz was a former Director of Research and Development at Naval Sea Systems Command.

Continue reading the entire article at The Pulse. 

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

PGA Tour To End COVID Testing For Both Vaccinated & Non-Vaccinated Players

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 4 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    The PGA Tour has announced that it will stop testing players every week, regardless of whether they have been vaccinated or not.

  • Reflect On:

    Are PCR tests appropriate to identify infectious people? Should people who are healthy and not sick be tested at all, anywhere?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

The picture you see above is of John Rahm, a professional golfer on the PGA tour being carted off the golf course after tournament officials told him he had COVID. He was healthy and had no symptoms, yet was forced to withdraw from the tournament. He was told in front of the camera’s, and a big scene was made out of the event. You would think something like that, especially when you are a big time sports figure, would be done behind closed doors with some privacy.

Earlier on in June a spokesperson for the PGA Tour said that more than 50 percent of players on the PGA tour have been vaccinated. Although it seems that the majority of players on the tour will be fully vaccinated judging by this statement, it does leave a fairly large minority who won’t be, and that’s something we’re seeing across the globe as COVID vaccine hesitancy remains high for multiple reasons.

We are pleased to announce, after consultation with PGA Tour medical advisors, that due to the high rate of vaccination among all constituents on the PGA Tour, as well as other positively trending factors across the country, testing for COVID-19 will no longer be required as a condition of competition beginning with the 3M Open. – PGA tour Senior VP Tyler Dennis

The tour recently announced that the testing of players every week will stop starting in July for both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated. This was an unexpected announcement given the fact that, at least it seems in some countries, vaccinated individuals will enjoy previous rights and freedoms that everyone did before the pandemic. Travelling without need to quarantine and possibly in the future not having to be tested could be a few of those privileges. Others may include attending concerts, sporting events, or perhaps even keeping their job depending on whether or not their employer deems it to be mandatory, if that’s even legally possible. We will see what happens.

Luckily for professional golfers, regardless of their vaccination status they won’t have to worry about testing positive for COVID, especially if they’re not sick. This is the appropriate move by the PGA tour, who is represented by their players and it’s a move that the players themselves may have had a say in. It’s important because PCR tests are not designed nor are they appropriate for identifying infectious people. A number of scientists have been emphasizing this since the beginning of the pandemic. More recently, a letter to the editor published in the Journal of infection explain why more than half of al “positive” PCR tests are likely to have been people who are not infectious, otherwise known as “false positives.”

This is why the Swedish Public Health agency has a notice on their website explaining how and why polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests are not useful for determining if someone is infected with COVID or if someone can transmit it to others, and it’s better to use someone who is actually showing symptoms as a judgement call of whether or not they could be infected or free from infection.

PCR tests using a high cycle threshold are extremely sensitive. An article published in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases found that among positive PCR samples with a cycle count over 35, only 3 percent of the samples showed viral replication. This can be interpreted as, if someone tests positive via PCR when a Ct of 35 or higher is used, the probability that said person is actually infected is less than 3%, and the probability that said result is a false positive is 97 percent. This begs the question, why has Manitoba, Canada, for example, using cycle thresholds of up to 45 to identify “positive” people?

When it comes to golf, the fact that spread occurring in an outdoor setting is highly unlikely could have been a factor, but it’s also important to mention that asymptomatic spread within one’s own household is also considerably rare. It really makes you wonder what’s going on here, doesn’t it?

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading

General

New Study Questions The Safety of COVID Vaccinations & Urges Governments To Take Notice

Avatar

Published

on

By

CE Staff Writer 9 minute read

In Brief

  • The Facts:

    A new study published in the journal Vaccines has called into question the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Reflect On:

    Why are people hesitant to take the vaccine? Why are scientists and journalists who explain why hesitancy may exist censored?

Before you begin...

Coherent icon

Take a moment and breathe. Place your hand over your chest area, near your heart. Breathe slowly into the area for about a minute, focusing on a sense of ease entering your mind and body. Click here to learn why we suggest this.

A new study published in the journal Vaccines by three scientists and medical professionals from Europe has raised concerns about the safety of COVID vaccines, and it’s not the first to do so. The study found that there is a “lack of clear benefit” of the vaccines and this study should be a catalyst for “governments to rethink their vaccination policy.”

The study calculated the number needed to vaccinate (NNTV) in order to prevent one death, and to do so they used a large Israeli Field study. Using the Adverse Drug Reactions (ADR) database of the European Medicines Agency and of the Dutch National Register (lareb.nl), the researchers were able to assess the number of cases reporting severe side effects as well as the cases with fatal side effects as a result of a COVID vaccine.

They point out the following:

The NNTV is between 200-700 to prevent on case of COVID-19 for the mRNA vaccine marketed by Pfizer, while the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000 (95 % confidence interval), with 16,000 as a point estimate. The number of cases experiencing adverse reactions has been reported to be 700 per 100,000 vaccinations. Currently, we see 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations, and the number of fatal side effects is at 4.11/100,000 vaccinations. For three deaths prevented by vaccination we have to accept two inflicted by vaccination. This lack of clear benefit should cause governments to rethink their vaccination policy.

The researchers estimates suggest that we have to exchange 4 fatal and 16 serious side effects per 100,000 vaccinations in order to save the lives of 2-11 individuals per 100,000 vaccinations. This puts the risk vs. benefit of COVID vaccination on the same order of magnitude.

We need to accept that around 16 cases will develop severe adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines per 100,000 vaccinations delivered, and approximately four people will die from the consequences of being vaccinated per 100,000 vaccinations delivered. Adopting the point estimate of NNTV = 16,000 (95% CI, 9000–50,000) to prevent one COVID-19-related death, for every six (95% CI, 2–11) deaths prevented by vaccination, we may incur four deaths as a consequence of or associated with the vaccination. Simply put: As we prevent three deaths by vaccinating, we incur two deaths.

The study does point out that COVID-19 vaccines are effective and can, according to the publication, prevent infections, morbidity and mortality associated with COVID, but the costs must be weighted. For example, many people have been asking themselves, what are the chances I will get severely ill and die from a COVID infection?

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from the Stanford University School of Medicine recently shared that the survival rate for people under 70 years of age is about 99.95 percent. He also said that COVID is less dangerous than the flu for children.  This comes based on approximately 50 studies that have been published, and information showing that more children in the U.S. have died from the flu than COVID. Here’s a meta analysis published by the WHO that gives this number. The number comes based on the idea that many more people than we have the capacity to test have most likely been infected.

How dangerous COVID is for healthy individuals has been a controversial discussion throughout this pandemic, with viewpoints differing.

Furthermore, as the study points out, one has to be mindful of a “positive” case determined by a PCR test. A PCR test cannot determine whether someone is infectious or not, and a recent study found that it’s highly likely that at least 50 percent of “positive” cases have been “false positives.”

This is the issue with testing asymptomatic healthy people, especially at a high cycle threshold. It’s the reason why many scientists and doctors have been urging government health authorities to determine cases and freedom from infections based on symptoms rather than a PCR test. You can read more in-depth about PCR testing and the issues with it here if you’re interested.

When it comes to the documented 4 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations and whether or not it’s a significant number, the researchers state,

This is difficult to say, and the answer is dependant on one’s view of how severe the pandemic is and whether the common assumption that there is hardly any innate immunological defense or cross-reactional immunity is true. Some argue that we can assume cross-reactivity of antibodies to conventional coronaviruses in 30–50% of the population [13,14,15,16]. This might explain why children and younger people are rarely afflicted by SARS-CoV2 [17,18,19].

Natural immunity is another interesting topic I’ve written in-depth about. There’s a possibility that more than a billion people have been infected, does this mean they have protection? What happens if previously infected individuals take the vaccine? What does this do to their natural immunity? The research suggesting natural immunity may last decades, or even a lifetime, is quite strong in my opinion.

There are also other health concerns that have been raised that go beyond deaths and adverse reactions as a result of the vaccine.

As the study points out,

A recent experimental study has shown that SARS-CoV2 spike protein is sufficient to produce endothelial damage. [23]. This provides a potential causal rationale for the most serious and most frequent side effects, namely, vascular problems such as thrombotic events. The vector-based COVID-19 vaccines can produce soluble spike proteins, which multiply the potential damage sites [24]. The spike protein also contains domains that may bind to cholinergic receptors, thereby compromising the cholinergic anti-inflammatory pathways, enhancing inflammatory processes [25]. A recent review listed several other potential side effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that may also emerge later than in the observation periods covered here [26]…Given this fact and the higher number of serious side effects already reported, the current political trend to vaccinate children who are at very low risk of suffering from COVID-19 in the first place must be reconsidered.

Concerns regarding the distribution of the spike protein our cells manufacture after injection have been recently raised by Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist from the University of Guelph who recently released a detailed in depth report regarding safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.

The report was released to act as a guide for parents when it comes to deciding whether or not their child should be vaccinated against COVID-19. Bridle published the paper on behalf of one hundred other scientists and doctors who part of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance, but who are afraid to ‘come out’ publicly and share their concerns. Byram, as many others, have received a lot of criticism and have been subjected to fact checking via Facebook third party fact-checkers.

A recent article published in the British Medical Journal by journalist Laurie Clarke has highlighted the fact that Facebook has already removed at least 16 million pieces of content from its platform and added warnings to approximately 167 million others. YouTube has removed nearly 1 million videos related to, according to them, “dangerous or misleading covid-19 medical information.”

It’s also important to note that only a small fraction of side effects are even reported to adverse events databases. The authors cite multiple sources showing this, and that the median underreporting can be as high as 95 percent. This begs the question, how many deaths and adverse reactions from COVID vaccines have not been reported? Furthermore, if there are long term concerns, will deaths resulting from an adverse reaction, perhaps a year later, even be considered as connected to to the vaccine? Probably not.

This isn’t the only study to bring awareness to the lack of injuries most likely not reported. For example, an HHS pilot study conducted by the Federal Agency for Health Care Research found that 1 in every 39 vaccines in the United States caused some type of injury, which is a shocking comparison to the 1 in every million claim. It’s also unsettling that those who are injured by the COVID-19 vaccine won’t be eligible for compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) while COVID is still an “emergency”, at least in the United States.

Below is the most recent data from the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS). Keep in mind that VAERS is not without its criticism. One common criticism we’ve seen from Facebook fact-checkers, for example, is there is no proof that the vaccine was actually the cause of these events.

A few other papers have raised concerns, for example. A study published in October of 2020 in the International Journal of Clinical Practice states:

COVID-19 vaccines designed to elicit neutralising antibodies may sensitise vaccine recipients to more severe disease than if they were not vaccinated. Vaccines for SARS, MERS and RSV have never been approved, and the data generated in the development and testing of these vaccines suggest a serious mechanistic concern: that vaccines designed empirically using the traditional approach (consisting of the unmodified or minimally modified coronavirus viral spike to elicit neutralising antibodies), be they composed of protein, viral vector, DNA or RNA and irrespective of delivery method, may worsen COVID-19 disease via antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE). This risk is sufficiently obscured in clinical trial protocols and consent forms for ongoing COVID-19 vaccine trials that adequate patient comprehension of this risk is unlikely to occur, obviating truly informed consent by subjects in these trials.

In a new research article published in Microbiology & Infectious Diseases, veteran immunologist J. Bart Classen expresses similar concerns and writes that “RNA-based COVID vaccines have the potential to cause more disease than the epidemic of COVID-19.”

For decades, Classen has published papers exploring how vaccination can give rise to chronic conditions such as Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes — not right away, but three or four years down the road. In this latest paper, Classen warns that the RNA-based vaccine technology could create “new potential mechanisms” of vaccine adverse events that may take years to come to light.

There are a plethora of reasons why COVID vaccine hesitancy has been quite high. I wrote an in-depth article about this in April if you’re interested in learning about the other reasons.

Conversations like this are incredibly important in today’s climate of mass censorship. Who is right or wrong is not important, what’s important is that discussion about the vaccine and all other topics remain open and transparent. The amount of experts in the field who have been censored for sharing their views on this topic has been unprecedented. For example, in March, Harvard epidemiologist and vaccine expert Dr. Martin Kulldorff was subjected to censorship by Twitter for sharing his opinion that not everybody needed to take the COVID vaccine.

It’s good to see this recent study point out that the benefits of the vaccine, for some people, may not outweigh the potential costs.

Dive Deeper

Click below to watch a sneak peek of our brand new course!

Our new course is called 'Overcoming Bias & Improving Critical Thinking.' This 5 week course is instructed by Dr. Madhava Setty & Joe Martino

If you have been wanting to build your self awareness, improve your.critical thinking, become more heart centered and be more aware of bias, this is the perfect course!

Click here to check out a sneak peek and learn more.

Continue Reading
advertisement - learn more
advertisement - learn more

Video

Elevate your inbox and get conscious articles sent directly to your inbox!

Choose your topics of interest below:

You have Successfully Subscribed!